Imagination as a Negative Dimension

The observation of phenomena is dependent upon a connection between the phenomena, in which the phenomena in themselves are relegated to points that must connect to form a further point as the phenomena itself.

This connection of phenomena is a mirroring process in which we observe the phenomena existing both as symmetry, or a set of mirroring dimensions, in themselves and a symmetry between eachother, as a set of dimensions which summated the phenomena as "one" set of dimensions mirroring dimensions.

In these respects what we understand of phenomena are strictly the observation of symmetry, as structure, as symmetry through the connection of such phenomena.

This connection of phenomena occurs through a connection between the phenomena through lines. These lines in themselves are an absence of dimensionality that connects the phenomena through an absence of difference.

Where phenomena A may have one degree of dimensionality and phenomena B may have another degree of dimensionality, the connection between phenomena A and B observes an absence of difference between the two. In these respects phenomena C, as the connection of A and B, is strictly a negative dimension that binds the two. The line as a connector, in these respects, is a negative dimension in itself as the negation of dimension between phenomena's A and B through the line as phenomena C. Phenomena A and B are connected because of the negation of dimension between them which in turn draws them together. Under these terms, what we understand of the line is a negative dimension synonymous to "imaginary" in which seemingly multiplicitous phenomena exist as one through this connection as a form of negation of differences.

In these respects what we understand of imagination is strictly the connection of various dimensions, through the line which is absent of dimensionality in itself. From this perspective imagination both divides and connects various phenomena simultaneously by the application of line, which in themselves are negative dimensions on their own terms. This is considering the line is absent of dimension on its own terms, except through the point. However a zero dimensional point is absent of any dimensionality and in these respects, the points observed are 1d in the respect that they provide the foundation for dimensions as axioms in themselves that circulate into themselves perpetually as intradimensional. We can observe this intuitively in the respect that all axioms are dependent, but not limited to, a foundation of circular rationality. How much different for a point as an entity in itself?

In these respect what we understand of imagination is subjective summation into an objective one, with the phenomena of the connecting points and lines providing the objective grounds for subjectivity. We can observe the subjective imagination, from these premises, as merely relational observation in which an phenomena is experienced form a certain "angle" of awareness premised in a point of reflection as the foundation. This is considering all axioms, physically and abstractly, result in point. An object viewed up close results in a point, an object from a far results in a point, and the object in between is set of points, where the absence of any perceivable point is approximated by a line.

This applies axiomatically to the nature of abstract realities as well, considering dialogue are both reduced to and maximize into axiomatic points and the in between is a series of connect points. In these respects the axiom, as one of the foundations for consciousness, is both subjective and objective in nature through the "point" being the universal axiom of dimensionality. The connection of these points, as observing a degree of multiplicity, is an absence of dimensionality as imagination itself which, in itself is irrational, exists as the extension (literally and figuratively) between rational points.

The -1 dimensional line, approximates seemingly multiplicitous phenomena by observing a connection through them in which phenomena A and B are extensions of eachother through an absence of dimensionionality.

One point connected to One point through a -1 line, observes 1,-1, and 1 fundamentally existing as 1 through the summation of (1+-1+1)=1.

Or the connection of 1 point to 2 points through 2 -1d lines observes a summation of 1.

Three connected points can be observed as a fraction of 1, in which the 3 points and -3 lines cancel each other out to zero, with three merely being an extension of 1 as multiplicitous in nature or in simpler terms three is always a one individuating through three lines resulting in the three connected points and the original 1 point which is connected to the three points by the vary same dividing lines. This is considering a point divided is a point multiplied plus the original point(s).

In these respects we can observe approximation, not only as a form of connection, but simultaneously as a form of separation with the separating line connecting the original points.

Even a standard localize point, through space time, divided by itself observes 2 points and what we understand of time is merely 1 dividing itself into 1 as 2. To give further clarity to this point imagine point 1 as a space/time locality. This point in turn is divided by itself, through one line which observes the progression of space/time as a linear construct. Now 1/1 always equals 1 in relation, but observing the localize space/time from a larger perspective we can observe the 1 point dividing itself into 2 points with the dividing line, as negative dimensional, connecting them simultaneously. So while the division of 1/1 always results in 1 as a space/time locality, the original point exists as a connected to the current point and in these respects division simultaneously acts a linear degree of connection.

The point divided still retains it's same nature as point, yet the connections to further points in turn observes its nature through what it mirrors in structure.

In these respects the -1d line negates a separation between what may appear as separate dimensions while simultaneously observing a separation in a different respect. This separation, implied through the necessity of connection by a linear construct, observes multiplicity as strictly the limit of unity as the approximation of unity. This seperation can be observed as the connection itself resulting in a dual multiplicity to the phenomena, much in the same manner “connecting the dots” is observing multiple dots. However when the dots are connected they exist as one. In these respects the approximation of a set of dimensions, ie 1d points, is fundamentally an observation of their unity as point. Multiplicity can be argued as the limit of observation where we observe lines as limits in themselves.

The imaginary -1d line in turn folds into further -1d lines, to form a 1d line, similar in both form and function to how imaginary realities physicalize themselves through the application of dimensions. Take for example the process of invention. A series of imaginary lines connect seemingly disconnect points through the process of thought. This thought in turn as it relates to the seemingly physical reality, which is an extension of zero dimensional point space that causes the separation of phenomena as "finiteness" or time as movement through multiple phenomena, in a manner similar to a 1d line folding upon itself in zero dimensional space.

The negative dimensional lines, relate through the zero dimensional space through individuation as multiplication/division, to form a 1d linear construct that is subject to time. We can observe this as -1*-1 or -1/-1 always resulting in 1. In these respects, all symmetrical abstract realities exist through a dualism, or even amount, or -1 lines that result in the 1d line as space/time phenomena. A simpler way of putting this would be that inventor observing the construct as an image, through imagination, in his mind and in turn converted these negative dimension through a process of relation in which the symmetry of the image is converted into a series of relative 1d lines forming the invention itself as a physical reality. This physical reality projects itself across time/space through the process of change in which the 1d lines which form it continually multiply and divided through a process of individuation that separate the object form nothingness as 0d point-field space.

These negative dimensions in turn relate through a dualism, through the process of physicalization in which the even number of lines must relate in the presence of 0d space (physical reality) in order to exist. This relation of -1d lines in turn form 1d lines which must relate to further 1d lines through the process of individuation as relation, in which relative 1d lines multiply/divide further 1d lines as "change" which allows a form of propagation through space/time. In simpler terms, the lines as existing through 0d space must relate to other lines, with the line itself being the physical foundation of 1 as space through unit-particulate. The line is a unit-particulate that acts as the dimensionality which forms space as a boundary in itself. The 1d extradimensional line is number as space and must relate to further 1d linear unit-particulate through a process of folding and halving, conducive to a dualism as alternation, in order to exist.

This dualistic alternation of individuation through folding and halving provides the foundation of movement through a 0d point-field, in which the 0d point is the source of multiplicity in this process.

This propagation is dependent upon an extradimensional nature of the lines, which mirrors the dual intradimensional nature of the 1d points which precede the extradimensional lines through a constant abstract reality. In these respects one is dimension of space which provides the foundation for consciousness as both physical and abstract reality through dimensionality as space. Intradimensionality, under these terms, is conducive to unity while extra dimensionality is conducive to multiplicity as the limit of this unity, through approximation of this very same unity, in which the 1d lines moves through the -1d lines.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

You are partially correct and your statement has strong merit. It is definitely an extension of phenomenology, as you observed, however it reflects the nature of all "phenomena" (specifically the imagination in this case) as having an inherent mathematical and spatial quality that are inseperable and the foundations of the phenomena themselves.

In the process of measurement, and furthermore "observation" itself, a series of problems occurs in respect to understanding the nature of "imagination" considering that it is inherent within the hypothesis of and is the subjective root of the scientific method.

This causes problems for the "objective" nature of the scientific process considering what it is based upon is primarily a system of axioms which maintain a dualistic subjective and objective nature, not strictly objective alone.

In these respects the process of measurement, specifically the imagination as a form of "imaging" and "crystallization" of phenomena, inherently is at minimum dualistic hence the process of "observing" cannot be separated from the application of qualitative and quantitative phenomena.

In simpler terms, all number and space as one of the foundational roots of quantity and quality, cannot be seperated from the "imaging" process itself considering "imaging" is the formation of definition through the application of boundaries which in turn manifest into axioms.

Our ability to observe both number and space must extend from number and space as a self-referential system where how we perceive phenomena is a process of folding into itself as the formation of being. Part of this may be premised in the fact that the definition of phenomena, is inseparable from the "imaging" of imagination, and this process of definition must in turn define itself in order to maintain itself.

Imagination, as a mirroring process where reality is both transformed and synthesized, approximates how we understand the "unity of the infinite" considering we can only under the "whole" as "parts". These parts in themselves are extensions of the "1", with this "1" being both the summation ends and means of all being.

The imagination is a self-referential system of the one in the respect it measures and forms itself through the application of boundaries which provide the necessary premise for order. Considering the "one" is inseparable, our perception of it through boundaries as images which in themselves are symbolic medians (or axioms), we must "divide" this "one" in order to understand it.

The problem occurs in the respect that this "division" is impossible as all phenomena are in the one itself hence approximation through division paradoxically is an observation of connection. This "division" as "imaginary" is inherently a negative dimension in itself that exists as a approximation of unity where the "connection" exists only as an approximation of the unity.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

You're actualky speaking my language! I never thought this day would come :D

The difficulty here, and I am sure you appreciate, is the term "reality" at the heart of what you've said above. Maybe you've fully taken on the phenomenological perspective in this matter (beyond the Heideggerian roughshod approach to the problem as being how it is framed in language - not that this ever goes away!) that is the bracketing of "reality" as this or that, rather the phenomenon as given.

I have made some effort on this forum and tried to outline the gist of Husserl's approach by referring to his "Crisis". If you do a search on Husserl in this forum it'll pop up.

I should note something I commented on recently (I think I did so on this forum?) about consciousness and "qualia". The issue I had, and what you've adumbrated above, is the "measure" and problems of plurality. In this sense both "qualia" and "phenomena" are facades, because they are singularly known, they are not made up of smaller fragments - again, something Husserl was quick to point out about the so called "unity of experience".

I understand we may very well, and most likely are, talking past each other to some degree (inevitable I think and not a failing on either side at all), but I am fairly sure we're in a reasonably close vacinity to each other too :)

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

The difficulty here, and I am sure you appreciate, is the term "reality" at the heart of what you've said above. Maybe you've fully taken on the phenomenological perspective in this matter (beyond the Heideggerian roughshod approach to the problem as being how it is framed in language - not that this ever goes away!) that is the bracketing of "reality" as this or that, rather the phenomenon as given.

It appears this "bracketing", or "categorization" you may even call it, is both necessary and unnecessary at the same time in different respects.

1) The ability to bracket reality in one respect gives structure to that very same reality, I will use the term "phenomena" because of its more "general" nature, in the respect that boundaries are given. What we understand of order and its inseparable nature from existence itself is the fact that order is inseparable from the boundaries which form it, hence "dimensions" and "being" appear to be synonymous terms. A geometric form, and any object that approximates geometric forms, exists because of the boundaries which form it. This "boundaries", universally speaking, break down to various points and lines. Even at the nature of emotion and intuition, what seperates one phenomena from another inherently is the line.

2) In a separate respect this nature of "boundary", in and of itself, simultaneously "seperates" the percieved phenomena. So where a simple square exists as a unit in itself because of the boundaries, these very same boundaries, simultaneously seperate it from the space around it. This space "around" the unit in itself may be a further "unit", I prefer the term "unit-particulate", which in turn simultaneously forms the unit (square in this case) which composed it. Hence it may be implied that boundaries as seperation observe a nature of "relation" as parts, so what we observe as a "unit-particulate" is simply an approximation of a whole through parts. In these respects "unit" as "relation through change" is an approximation of "unity" with this "unity" being unchanging in itself.

3) This "unit" as an approximation "unity" is dependent upon the "dimensions" which form it, hence these dimensions must extend, or better put "originate", from "unity" itself with "unity" being the foundation of dimensionality. Considering this dimensionality is necessary for understanding the nature of phenomena, as it gives premise to what we consider as boundary, the question that must be addressed must be: "What is dimension?".

These boundaries, as fundamentally points and lines, when broken down appear to loop through themselves in the respect that they form themselves ad-infinitum (a line is composed of further lines and points, the same applies for a point, etc.) hence a degree of "no-limit" appears dually with "limit" and what we understand of these boundaries seem to be inherently "space" in itself. This "space" as the foundation of dimensionality appears to exist as a form of direction in the respect that at minimum "1 dimensionality" is inherently one direction. We can observe the relation of 1d lines forming the unit-particulate space in this manner, hence "relativity" is dependent upon an extra-dimensional nature.

The question occurs in respects to what constitutes unity as nothing can exist from it for "unity" is summation and totality in its fullest sense. Hence it must be implied, if not argued as logically necessary, that pure "unity" as pure dimensionality as "direction" must be intradimensional in one respect while simultaneously unlimited or "unbound" in another. This absence of boundarie mean this "unity" of structure paradoxically must have no structure while at the same time being both the foundation and summation of it.

A 0d point does not fit this criteria as it is strictly "absence of dimension" which is dependent upon 1d linear structures to being "observed" (if one can word it in such a way). Hence a theoretical 1d point as the foundation seems not only to be necessary but inseperable from the foundation from which all phenomena, hence being, extends from. This point as unlimited in the respect it has no structure, considering it is only a point, in a seperate respect is pure "dimension" as pure "direction" into itself as infinity through infinity as "1".

Hence this 1d point, which is purely abstract yet acts as the glue which holds physical reality together (as all point space glues "reality" together) observes a beginning standard of measurement as reality both proceeds from and cycles back to this "1". In these respects our observation of phenomena, as a form of measurement in itself, is an application of points which are extensions of the 1 while simultaneously existing as the "one".

I have made some effort on this forum and tried to outline the gist of Husserl's approach by referring to his "Crisis". If you do a search on Husserl in this forum it'll pop up.

I'll look into it when I have the time.

I should note something I commented on recently (I think I did so on this forum?) about consciousness and "qualia". The issue I had, and what you've adumbrated above, is the "measure" and problems of plurality. In this sense both "qualia" and "phenomena" are facades, because they are singularly known, they are not made up of smaller fragments - again, something Husserl was quick to point out about the so called "unity of experience".

I understand we may very well, and most likely are, talking past each other to some degree (inevitable I think and not a failing on either side at all), but I am fairly sure we're in a reasonably close vacinity to each other too :)

That is the "crux" of it all...the nature of separation and how it relates to what reality is in itself. Are we really talking past each other? Or not? Both as approximations? The latter question seems to be the most appropriate one considering this nature of phenomena seems inseparable from a "mirror effect" where the previously mentioned 1d point exists through an ad-infinitum replication of "dimensions" that seems to by infinite movement as replication with this infinity being "no-movement" in itself.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

The problem is that a mathematical structure implies rules and the imagination has no such rules. Indeed, you could say that is one of its functions to look outside of any box of rules. Therefore even if there were such a thing described by a negative dimension it would not be the imagination. But... if perhaps there really is no such thing and you are just using this to represent the imagination. But the point is that there is no mathematical structure to the imagination and thus all this really amounts to is use scientific jargon to make it sound like science and the name for that is pseudo-science.

If you want to talk about the actual science of the imagination then the thing to do is to explore the brain functionality which gives rise to this faculty.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

I am hazarding a guess as to what is meant by "negative" here, but certainly not "imagination".

I have the feeling this is the long drawn out problem of Kantian noumenon again. That is the negative sense being conflated with the positive sense (with is nothing.)

Eod -

I really hope to engage with you more about this. I will try to dig out something of Husserl later in regards to something I found both interesting, inspirational and puzzling. His approach to polarity.

This has been a long running theme with myself with the investigation of "subjectivity", "unit", ideas of "absolute", antonyms and other such things like measurement and "universals".

Here is something (not read yet myself and is likely to contain some hard leaning toward "post-modernism" I think - at least there appears to be an understanding of Derrida's silly critique!)

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

mitchellmckain » March 29th, 2018, 1:10 am wrote:The problem is that a mathematical structure implies rules and the imagination has no such rules.The problem occurs in the respect that imagination as an imaging process is dependent upon the formation of boundaries in and of itself. To clarify this point further and extreme example of an "acid trip" can be applied. One extreme shows the swirling or "mutilation" of various degrees of structure into various base forms of spatial curvature and qualitative color. While this in essence appears "chaotic" and a constant degree of perpetual change occurs this curvature of relative degrees of space, expressed through a color spectrum is dependent upon an approximation of constants where "x curve" and "y color", however "changing" they may be are "x curve" and "y color". In these respects "chaos", in the percieved imaging process, is dependent upon constants with this "chaos" merely being an approximation of order through change as a further approximation of absolutes. In these respects even the extremes of the imaging process, or imagination we usually call it, are dependent upon structure and cannot exist without this inherent order and reason.

Indeed, you could say that is one of its functions to look outside of any box of rules.To look outside a box is to observe a box and hence put oneself back in the box. The observation of any formal system, in this case the "box", is dependent on an outside perspective to begin with considering a view point from inside the system alone causes an apparent observation of "chaos" in the respect an inside perspective alone "only allows" an approximate viewpoint of the system. To view the system through the system inherently leads to a chaotic viewpoint in the respect the system is the standard premise of the perspective and is grounded in itself. As being grounded in itself is must continually manifest order through itself and in these respects a continual process of perceived "change" must occur, which in itself is conducive to an absence of "absolute" certainty as the system must continually "manifest itself" in the face of a percieve limit or absence.

Therefore even if there were such a thing described by a negative dimension it would not be the imagination. As premised in the first paragraph the imagination is dependent on various forms which crystalize into images. These forms, when viewed abstractly, exist for what they are in the imaging process as the nature of linguistic definition causes problems of "mediation". Hence visualization is its own form of communication in itself. These forms, as extensions of "1" theoretical unity, are approximations of the "1" as "parts" of the one with this percieved multiplicity merely being an approximation of "unity" as the "limits" of perceived unity. The imagination, observes these extensions and observes the boundaries which connect them with these boundaries fundamentally being "negative" in the respect they are not "really there" in one respect considering all being exists as one. In these respects these negative boundaries are "approximations" of unity where the medial truths exist in there own rights as extensions of "the 1" while in a seperate respect these boundaries act as "connectors". Deficiency is merely an approximation hence the imaging process has a dualistic approach of crystallizing forms into images that "shows a connection" while simultaneously observes a "seperation" in the respect that a connection maintains a degree of paradoxical seperation. Hence the "imaging process" is not only an approximation of forms but fundamentally a synthesis of forms.

But... if perhaps there really is no such thing and you are just using this to represent the imagination. But the point is that there is no mathematical structure to the imagination and thus all this really amounts to is use scientific jargon to make it sound like science and the name for that is pseudo-science.

The problem of science is its complete and total dependence on the imagination process in the form of questioning, which we see necessary in both the hypothesis and basic questioning method of deductive reasoning. In these respects science, as evidence by individual "discovery" or "invention" (which is another subject altogether), is dependent upon an inherently "subjective" methodology that exists dually to objective truth. In these respects "objectivity" contradicts itself under its own logic as its framework is dependent upon a subjective methodology and process of human rationalization and measurement. Subjectivity dually contradicts itself under its own, one could argue "absence" of logic (if these viewpoint is taken), as it synthesizes into an objective median through which reality and its inherent phenomena are transformed.

In these respects there is no true "scientific" method, nor "non-scientific" method, but a continual process of observation conducive to "synthesis as a process of measurement".

If you want to talk about the actual science of the imagination then the thing to do is to explore the brain functionality which gives rise to this faculty.

The logical connundrum occurs in the respect that for brain functionality to be truly observed, the aspect of the brain which measures this "functionality" (or the corresponding neurons, chemicals, atoms, etc.) must be observed in order to understand the process of this framework. In simpler terms the "loop" which forms this reasoning process of the brain observing the brain must be observed if any proceeding framework is to be recognized. To view the process of rationalization through a "neuro-pschological approach" would depend upon a complete understand of the axioms which form it otherwise a strictly "subjective pseudo-scientific" approach is grounded as the median from which this objective nature is projected. The great irony of scientific advancement is its dependence upon axioms of "belief" and what we deems as "objective truth" is merely a perspective in itself as a framework through which we approximate absolutes by observing change.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

I am hazarding a guess as to what is meant by "negative" here, but certainly not "imagination".

I have the feeling this is the long drawn out problem of Kantian noumenon again. That is the negative sense being conflated with the positive sense (with is nothing.)

This negative and positive duality, quantitatively observed as 0 and 1, and qualitatively observed through many other medians (being/non-being, black/white, good/evil, truth/falsity) inherently leads to a necessity of Hegelian synthesis as this perceived duality causes a problem of "change through opposition" which can be observed relatively speaking through:

Under these terms a triadic necessity must be observed as a duality of change and no-change must be observed where the synthesis results in the formation of axioms, or "perspectives", through which we measure reality and hence ourselves. In these respects we can understand the nature of measurement as inherently triadic in nature as a intuitive triangulation where three points are observed (postive, negative, neutral), and the proceeding connections give precedent to not only how we observe phenomena but the phenomena themselves.

Is it a Kantian problem? Most likely Yes. Is it limited to a strict Kantian Perspective? No.

Eod -

I really hope to engage with you more about this. I will try to dig out something of Husserl later in regards to something I found both interesting, inspirational and puzzling. His approach to polarity.

The problem of observing a dualism is that it is the base level of "measurement" from which we "split" reality resulting in Two units of 1 with "0" being the seperator. In these respects the observation of dualism, under its own terms, leads to a problem of relativity in the respect that parts exist in relation to each other. This observation of "relation" in itself is dependent upon a process of continual change in the respect that parts must relate to further parts in order to exist. From a perspective of "progressive knowledge" this has some degree of merit, if not necessity, but the problem occurs in the respect that it leads to a linear progression away from its origins and causes a further fracturing process that is conducive to an "instability" if not premised in an original median of self-reflective premises.

This has been a long running theme with myself with the investigation of "subjectivity", "unit", ideas of "absolute", antonyms and other such things like measurement and "universals".

Here is something (not read yet myself and is likely to contain some hard leaning toward "post-modernism" I think - at least there appears to be an understanding of Derrida's silly critique!)

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Some reference to the philosophical terminology you're using would be helpful. You missed the point about Kant, but never mind. Not many people bother with it and I'm tired of getting into it, was fishing for common ground.

I am a little suspicious of people creating links to apparent occult based ideas. I am not really sure what you mean by "dualism" here? I am guessing (hoping) you meant dichotomies rather than some stretching for a philosophy of dualism?

There is certainly a mixture of psychology, philosophy and hermeticism in what you've presented. I've chatted with plenty of people who are interested in occult history, magick and such, and too many are delusional. I am not yet framing you as such, just making it known that some warning flags have gone up in my camp :)

All said and done a see a thread of meaning through what you've presented, just not sure about the meaning of the fluff on top yet (or whether it is anything other than mere fluff?)

I've had problems trying to express this kind of thing because I always find myself clutching for analogies that likely do little more than confuse and confound the reader.

Have you read anything of Husserl? I'd really like to here what you've read so we can find some common ground and work with terminology we're both familiar with.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

I am not going to argue the point -- just explaining why the scientific community will not be interested in the idea. This is the realm of subjective believe and I have no desire to change your thinking in such things. But like other subjective ideas it is not reasonable to expect others to accept them. This is not to say that nobody will. It is a matter of personal taste.

As for me, the whole point I see for believing in a subjective aspect to reality is a feeling that the deterministic mathematical order of science is not limit of reality. And thus I cannot help but think that using such terminology for the subjective adds nothing but greater obscurity.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

mitchellmckain » March 29th, 2018, 2:25 pm wrote:I am not going to argue the point -- just explaining why the scientific community will not be interested in the idea. This is the realm of subjective believe and I have no desire to change your thinking in such things.

That is a paradox is it not? A "community" will not except something because it is "subjective"? What seperates the subjective nature of a community from that of an individual? Both the community and the individual both must "agree", either through or within themselves, about the nature of what they percieve as truth. Does this mean truth does not exist? No, but it still leads inherently to various questions as to the nature of truth.

If a subjective experience of an individual is proven wrong, which often times in the face of reality is proven to be the case, what differs that from the community whose process of "democratic agreement" (as a form of might) follows a similiar course and manner? Is a specific percentage of agreement necessary for something to be accepted as true? If so what is it and where is the "science" behind that? Even if such an answer is to be determined, and it very well might be one day, it leads to a form of metaphysics...one could even argue pure "logic" or "reason"...in determining not just the nature of that "truth" but even the means to how it is applied.

Even the problem occurs in the respect of how you premise you argument...you do not "desire". Is that not subjective? Or is desire also objective? If it is strictly subjective then by your mode of reasoning you contradict yourself. If it is objective, which can exist simultaneously as a desire often points to a deficiency of some form or manner, then by default the nature of science (how it constitutes itself and is applied to all various forms of reality) must be expanded. This expansion would require it to enter a new methodology of thinking about what its various premises are founded upon.

The scientific method has failed to be scientific about itself because to do so would requires a further understanding about the subjective qualities it is so highly dependent upon, namely the hypothesis and question method which metaphorically act as the seeds from which truth springs from.

Is a strict subjectivity alone the answer? Of course not as it is rife with contradiction...and yet a pure objectivity (as premised by the inherently subjective premises of the scientific method itself) ironically seems to be out of the question.

I don't think that the problem, in regards to my thinking, is necessitated by any degree of change considering what I am stating is an objective observation. Science, which claims objectivity, is dependent upon a subjective methodology. This in itself is scientific considering it is looking at the nature of the situation objectively. Now how I order, or give structure to the idea, may in itself be "subjective" but this does not necessarily contradict the objectivity of what I claim nor eliminate the questions as having a degree of apriori meaning to them at level much larger than my own.

For example, a tree, let us say an "oak", is an oak tree whereever it grows. And yet one oak tree differs from another in respect to not only where they grow but also how they grow. No oak tree is exactly the same and yet they are both oaks....a duality of unity and multiplicity is observed where the tree is synthesized as its own "axiom" or self-evident truth.

Much can be inferred with the dualistic nature of the subjective and the objective inherent within what we call "the truth", or the nature of the "axiom" which gives both a means and inherent measure to how we not only perceive reality but also how reality perceives us.

The oak objectively is the oak yet it manifests an infinite number of possibilities in the manner in which it springs for from the soil. Subjectivity can be viewed in such a manner where the individual's subjective experience, oftentimes one clouded in the dark of "unknowing" (like a perpetual childhood), must manifest all sorts of possibilities in the face of nothingness in order to "exist". What is the subjective experience other than one of "darkness", similiar to the oak growing in the soil? And yet this subjectivity, most evidently produced in the process of questioning, allows a form of objectivity to take hold admit the "absence" of truth and in this manner structure is given.

But like other subjective ideas it is not reasonable to expect others to accept them. This is not to say that nobody will. It is a matter of personal taste.

For what who claims the necessity of objectivity many of your premises are highly subjective to what your tastes are.

As for me, the whole point I see for believing in a subjective aspect to reality is a feeling that the deterministic mathematical order of science is not limit of reality. And thus I cannot help but think that using such terminology for the subjective adds nothing but greater obscurity.

Not entirely greater obscurity as the subjective experience is oftentimes measured relative to other dimensions in order to give it structure. I perceive "x" and I measure that to "y" in order to gain a greater understanding of "x" itself...all its "truths" and all of its "deficiencies".

This ability for self-reflection, as evidenced in the circularity of the scientific method where a subjective hypothesis/question circles back upon itself through logical chain of various steps, in which turns to an objective truth.

In these respects what we understand of the nature of subjectivity, in accords with reason, is a process of self-reflection in which structure is given and what is deemed to be "without structure" in turn is given objective structure through a mirroring process. In this manner the imagination, as an imaging process where forms are given structure, exist through a mirroring process. This mirroring process, appears to be the foundation for not only reason in itself but that application of measurements in another. We observe order through order as order and this is summated as a form of measurement. This measurement, as a structure in itself, manifests itself in various forms both physically (measuring a piece of wood to build a house) and abstractly (thinking about thinking) where reality becomes evident through itself as being through order.

Now the question occurs in regards to the objective nature of this imaging process, with this "objectivity" necessitated by a universal form of quantification and qualification that must have some premise in mathematics, considering mathematics in itself is a form of measurement. In this manner measurement and imagination cannot be seperated as both are not only co-dependent upon eachother but both necessitate that application of dimensions.

In this manner imagination as the application of dimensions, has an inherently objective nature which prevents a structural contradiction in the premises of science as the "hypthosesis/questioning" methodology in itself, while appearing strictly subjective, has an objective nature to it. This objectivity observes that science, while requiring empirical methodology to justify it, might strictly begin with the hypothesis/question as a root in itself. In these respects science is both rooted in and necessitated by a simple philosophy of questioning.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

BadgerJelly » March 29th, 2018, 1:56 pm wrote:Some reference to the philosophical terminology you're using would be helpful. Okay, elaborate the points that confuse you and I will address them...I am here to find a median in vocabulary differences so any "confusion" is not your fault by mine.

You missed the point about Kant, but never mind. Not many people bother with it and I'm tired of getting into it, was fishing for common ground.

I might have missed it...give me a short explanation.

I am a little suspicious of people creating links to apparent occult based ideas. I am not really sure what you mean by "dualism" here? I am guessing (hoping) you meant dichotomies rather than some stretching for a philosophy of dualism?

What we observe as a dichotomy or dualism is strictly the observation of a concept, or even physical reality for that manner, acting as a "pair" or "two" where inherently qualitative or quantitative dimensions are applied. Take for example at the biological level the dualism of male and female where one is observed as "active" or "projective" (ie the male) and the other is observed as "passive" or "receptive" (ie the female). A dualism occurs where the "pair" maintain a symmetry where one not just completes the other but manifests fully through the other. The male provides the active seed, the female provides the receptive egg much in a similiar manner to being and non-being or 1 and 0. This duality in turn manifests into a further synthesis, which stabilizes both, in a manner that both maintains them but helps project them across time and space.

A male and female synthesize to form a neutral median as a child, which in turn manifests as either male or female (even hermophrodites generally have only one "active" pair of sex organs hence even they have an inherent sexuality) and the process continues as the child is both an extension of the parents in one respect while simultaneously an individual entity in its own right.

In a separate respect being and non-being, under the familiar terms of Hegelian Thesis and Anti-thesis, manifest a synthesis where the thesis and anti-thesis manifest a neutral synthesis that take a further form of "thesis or anti-thesis" relative to the terms it further synthesizes with.

1 and 0 take this further as possible 1 or 0...and in these regards, along with the above premises, a triadic nature inherently extends between any extremes where a new reality is manifested.

In this manner the "dualism" is simply an observation of an spatial and/or quantitative reality in which a process of synthesis takes place from an inherent isomorphism. This isomorphism is further dependent upon a mirror effect where one reality, constituted at its core by the boundaries and dimensions which form it, is strictly an extension of another with this extension in and of itself observing a form of multiplicity through approximation.

We can observe mathematically that 2 is an extension of 1 much in the same manner 1 mirrors itself through 2. 2 as an approximation of 1, is its own distinct qualitative and quantitative reality in one respect, while in a seperate manner is insepeable from 1. 2 is an effect of 1 as cause with this cause and effect nature being a form of approximation of unity through multiplicity where 2 as effect is an approximation of 1. In this manner how we understand approximation ties into chaos theory in the respect that multiplicity is a perceived absence of order with order itself being a totality through unity as a form of summation.

There is certainly a mixture of psychology, philosophy and hermeticism in what you've presented. I've chatted with plenty of people who are interested in occult history, magick and such, and too many are delusional. I am not yet framing you as such, just making it known that some warning flags have gone up in my camp :)

You are right, plenty are delusional in various degrees and I am not attempting to argue a strict hermetic approach as you observed this in itself is rife with problems...mostly extending from inflated egos of grandeur and a disconnect from the surrounding environment...I am more than well aware of this...but this "delusional" thinking extends across various scientific and religious backgrounds and seems to be an aspect of the human experience.

We are still left with many philosophical problem, relative to science and philosophy, as the origins of both (and you can read this for yourself, but probably already know this) extend from a form of alchemy. This alchemy in turns extends from a form of religion (we can see degrees of this extending from pythagorases journey's and initiation into various religious schools). This "religion" in turn extends from a set of beliefs which in turn act as application of measurements as to what constitutes reality.

In this manner religion, science and philosophy can only be seperated so far before a fractating form of relativism occurs in which none really answers the question of the other...yet ironically all are needed for the other to exist. The man of religion needs a degree of empirical evidence along with reason. The man of science needs a degree of belief along with reason. The man of philosophy needs a degree of belief along with evidence.

A base triadic structure is necessitated for us to not only understand reality but give some degree of understanding to it.

As to the "mixture", all progressive mentalities (that which seek to extend any form of knowledge past their origin base) requires an "origin" that gives some degree of stability otherwise an instability occurs in the respect that knowledge becomes built upon a house of sand. This "origin" requires some base unity from which the sciences must extend from, much like branches from a tree, otherwise a severe process of fracturing occurs. A question, relative to the nature of knowledge, occurs as to "Origin" as this gives some direction as to the "end".

All said and done a see a thread of meaning through what you've presented, just not sure about the meaning of the fluff on top yet (or whether it is anything other than mere fluff?)

Fluff is usually a statement of "too abstract", hence if you want practical examples just point out when and where or ask questions.

I've had problems trying to express this kind of thing because I always find myself clutching for analogies that likely do little more than confuse and confound the reader.

It appears we are in the same boat then...haha.

Have you read anything of Husserl? I'd really like to here what you've read so we can find some common ground and work with terminology we're both familiar with.

I had a course or two, years ago in college, did better than everyone and never studied except for fifteen minutes. Also various miscellaneous readings through the years. You will have to elaborate which terms you mean, in respect to "his", and I will probably be better able to address him.

The problem of a strictly subjective science...is that it is subjective and hence lacks any objective nature that allows for a universality through language. In a separate respect this subjectivity has, is and will be obtained strictly through the process of questioning in debate as the basics of language seems to be the common median through which we all communicate.

The subjective nature of reality really stems from the process of questioning as the question itself is originated through a structuring of absence where "nothingness" (absence of any truth) is enclosed through the structure of the question itself (being through the concepts which give structure to the question itself). In these respects socrates, and the various pre-socratics before him, engaged in a form of "phenomenology" prior to husserl. The reflection of reality through reality, both in subjective and objective terms, stems from the dialogue as a process of synthesis in itself. In this manner Husserl failed as he was trying to achieve what already has, is and will be done. He percieved methodology as to creating a science, to which he believed would lead him towards some degree of success, appears (at least to me) to be a reconstitution of philosophy towards more of an empirically scientific base more appropriate towards his times.

The problem occurs, at least minimally, that his endeavor he sought to achieve contradicts to various degrees the current scientific methodology we use today because this methodology is limited strictly to a progressive mentallity where the nature of origin is reflected upon but rarely embraced as an inherently necessary degree of "relfection" itself. In simpler terms modern methodology lacks a self-reflective base to give it structure and the proceeding progressive only mentality leads to relativistic fracturing process that undermines its inherent intentions of percieving a unified theory of knowledge. Relativity is not wrong however, but strictly contradicts itself when ignoring the relfective degree of unity that necessitates knowledge.

Under the religion ancient Egypt both math and physics had a greater degree of unity, and in various other cultures (such as the aztecs, mayans or their extreme counterparts of Judaism [and the Christianity and Muslims faiths which extend from it) math and being are inseperable. What happened to these cultures? Then extended themselves much further across time to their ability to continually ground themselves through a logistic circularity in which they were able to reflect back on their origins. Can we say that for the modern methods of science? Most likely not, and yet we cannot say the linear approach was entirely unsuccessful either.

In these manners, we can look at the nature of logic from an entirely geometric perspective and see that a unity of circular and linear form is necessary in the nature of the human conditions means through which we understand reality.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

mitchellmckain » March 29th, 2018, 2:25 pm wrote:I am not going to argue the point -- just explaining why the scientific community will not be interested in the idea. This is the realm of subjective believe and I have no desire to change your thinking in such things.

That is a paradox is it not? A "community" will not except something because it is "subjective"? What seperates the subjective nature of a community from that of an individual? Both the community and the individual both must "agree", either through or within themselves, about the nature of what they percieve as truth.

Not a paradox. It is the very difference between the objective and the subjective. The objective is the same for everyone because it is demonstrable and thus provides a reasonable expectation that others should agree. Like flat earthers and creationists, people can disagree, but it is not reasonable and demonstrates a degree of willful ignorance. BUT, it is ALSO demonstrable that things can be true even though there is no objective evidence. Thus it is only reasonable to also accept that we can have VERY good reasons to believe something even when we don't have a shred of evidence that we can demonstrate to other people. So reasonable people accept that there are things on which we must accept a diversity of belief.

In fact, I would argue that the objective is the abstraction and the subjective is the more immediate access to reality and thus more convincing on an individual level. Therefore we should conclude that the rational person accepts a diversity of human thought as unavoidable, and I would go beyond this to even claim that it is as much an asset for the survival of civilization as genetic diversity is for the survival of the species.

Nope. A diversity of thought does not mean that "truth does not exist." But we may disagree on what that phrase means, because for many seem to think that truth is necessarily singular and that the only truth is a truth which is completely the same for everyone. I reject this. I believe our diversity is as fundamental (if not more so) as it is for the different species of organisms -- as in the truth for the bird is not the truth for the worm, is not the truth for the tree, and so on. I would even say that we can be like separate universes to some degree. This is not solipsism because I also affirm that there is an objective aspect to reality, which is the same for everyone -- of that I would say there is excellent evidence. The evidence simply does not support (or refute) the claim that reality is exclusively objective. But I do think there are great pragmatic reasons (and thus subjective to some degree) for believing that there is a portion of reality which is irreducibly subjective.

What this suggests for the reasonable man is not that you should refrain from making your own decisions about what evidence to accept about what is real, but that you should not equate your experiences with reality itself to the point of passing judgement on the beliefs of others, which may very well be quite true about the reality they have experienced.

Regardless, science is defined by a methodology for finding the objectives truths and that is a worthwhile endeavor even if it is not the be all and end all of human existence -- not even close, I would say. Science is founded on objective observation, but human life is also (and I would even say primarily) about subjective participation. Life does not wait for objective evidence, and thus insisting you remain within the restrictions of objective observation for all areas and activities of life is frankly delusional. But this does not mean that we cannot insist on objective observation, evidence, and demonstrability at least as an ideal to strive for in the specialized activity of science.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

dandelion » April 1st, 2018, 3:57 am wrote:I'm not sure, I haven't followed well, but to do with Mitchell's mention of structure and imagination, does this thread consider imaginary numbers?

One can easily imagine that Eodnhoj was so enamored of this labeling that he turned it into some kind of philosophy about imagination in some kind of mathematical structure. But while I can acknowledge that imagination has a great deal to do with our exploration of math (as well as science), I would hardly support any confinement of imagination to the trappings of mathematics. Nor do I see mathematics having much explanatory power for understanding imagination itself. As I said before, a scientific inquiry into imagination would be the work of neurologists and those who study the brain.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

mitchellmckain » March 29th, 2018, 2:25 pm wrote:I am not going to argue the point -- just explaining why the scientific community will not be interested in the idea. This is the realm of subjective believe and I have no desire to change your thinking in such things.

That is a paradox is it not? A "community" will not except something because it is "subjective"? What seperates the subjective nature of a community from that of an individual? Both the community and the individual both must "agree", either through or within themselves, about the nature of what they percieve as truth.

Not a paradox. It is the very difference between the objective and the subjective. The objective is the same for everyone because it is demonstrable and thus provides a reasonable expectation that others should agree.

Apologies for the long post but there is a lot to cover.

"The same for everyone" comes into a common problem where various "schools" of people disagree on how to interpret the vary same phenomena they perceive. School "Y" may percieve phenomena "z" in a different manner than school "z" with that interpretation itself being the root through which phenomena "z" may be observed. Phenomena "z" exists nonetheless considering it is both acted upon and acting upon (the schools) in manner through which interpretation is given. This interpretation, in turn not only gives boundaries to the phenomena itself but simultaneously forms the very schools which observe them. Demonstration, in these regards, is not only a form of group interpretation in these regards but a formation of both the groups and the percieved phenomena by an application of structure. Hence a form of "imaging" is given in the respect that boundaries are applied, through the process of definition, and structure is formed.

The group and phenomena, through the process of measurement, become structures in themselves and in these respects, as you have observed, there is a commonality through objectivity in the respect that "agreement" gives its own form of symmetry. In a seperate respect that application of symmetry, is dependent upon a form of subjectivity due to this aggreement as this agreement alone requires a form of "acceptance" or personal insight which reverberates admidst the community and "glues" it together. In these respects "subjectivity" does maintain an objective bond, however this objectivity alone is dependent upon a degree of universality that is rooted in a subjective interpretation (whether or a rational and/or intuitive nature).

In these respects objectivity is necessary in the respect it not just promotes but maintains as form of symmetry, or structure/order, as "truth". And yet this "structure" encloses the subjective in such a manner that a question (which is highly subjective) is enclosed by the answer which gives its structure.

The questioning and answering process is dependent upon a form of "imaging" or "crystalization" of nothingness into forms or concepts from which a structure is maintained. My, or your, ability to not only form a question, but also an answer, takes what is "unknown" and gives it boundaries...which in turn solidifies it into truth through form (abstract and/or physical). While the subjective may lack a percieved "universality as objectivity" in the respect that it is inherently possibilisitic, this possibile nature of truth has an inherent "absence of limit" through which the "limit" extends through. So what is subjective may be absent in form but this "nothingness" is what the objective is rooted in...hence being comes through being.

The problem of the subjective and objective, which we can ascribe metaphorically being similar to "non-being" and "being", maintains a similar notion of negative and positive. While the subjective, and the imagination is very if not entirely subjective, is absent of any percievable structure it is in itself is dependent upon objective forms to give it image. This absence of structure, which equates the imagination to being a negative entity in itself, acts as a form of "division" in the respect that it separates realities to form new ones (strictly as ideas and/or physical invention).

Considering the realities the imagination "seperates" require a form of unification in the respect they must first be unified in order to be separated, the imagination "approximates" reality by observing a multiplicity where in fact there may be none. This approximation however forms phenomena, whether abstractly or physically, into parts and hence the process of "imaging" is simultaneously a process of manifesting "units". In these respects the process of imagination is an absence of boundary which manifests a multiplicity while dually acting as a boundary which forms the unit, or part of the whole, as a thing in itself which is subject to relation.

This form of "imaging" acts as a negative boundary in itself, as a false form of negation wityh negation itself being falsity, by allowing an approximation of unity through multiplicity. Hence from a perspective where imagination, being an extension of a rational structure (ie consciousness), must inherently maintain a dual quantitative and qualitative nature to which it is not just subject to but is founded in. A foundation of "space" being symmetry through symmetry, would observe this application of "dimension", which exists soley as symbolic medians or images, as being negative...hence quantitatively conducive to -1 and all negative numbers with the spatial equivalent to -1 (as a boundary) requiring a negative dimensional line (as the imaging process, at the micro and macro level is dependent upon boundaries inseperable from lines in themselves).

In these respects the imagination maintains a mathematical quality in the respect it acts as a negative.

Like flat earthers and creationists, people can disagree, but it is not reasonable and demonstrates a degree of willful ignorance.Unless I am mistaken these people agree with eachother and physicists (even mathematicians from what I have observed) eventually disagree with eachother. What maintains these groups is the degree of "symmetry" in agreement to eachother with the degree measured by its depth or fullness...however this in itself relates to a meta-problem of measurement and in itself may have a subjective base much in the same manner "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

One "beats" one group over the other, through neitzchian terms, may in fact be the force through which one is committed...yet this force is oftentimes determined ad-infinitum by greater forces and the question of "God" or "Divinity" comes into question.

BUT, it is ALSO demonstrable that things can be true even though there is no objective evidence. Thus it is only reasonable to also accept that we can have VERY good reasons to believe something even when we don't have a shred of evidence that we can demonstrate to other people. So reasonable people accept that there are things on which we must accept a diversity of belief.

Yes I fully agree with the above statement...you are right. But considering we both "agree", and oftentimes I find it not only rational but "healthy" to doubt myself from time to time, I must "doubt" your argument for the sake of argument (pardon the pun) and to question my own judgement. My doubt comes in the manner of the necessity of diversity which in itself requires a form of "unity" in agreement that simultaneously contradicts the very premises it seeks to observe. "We need diversity" for "unity" and hence "unity" must premise the diversity...otherwise there is nothing to "divide".

Hence, to repeat points I have made prior on other threads, a duality of "unity" and "multiplicity" occurs within the nature of knowledge. This diversity, a form of negation (I believe we can agree on in the respect it implies a division) is in itself "negative" in the respect that it not only approximates a unity but manifests individual units that relate as a "whole". This is considering these different, or "diverse", schools of thought inherently relate in such a manner in which one forms a part of the other. The creationists clash with the anti-creationists, and vice versa, and both synthesize arguments that in turn not only define their own viewpoints but further extend, or branch off to further view points. In these respects "diversity" as negation acts a form of "imaging", or the act of giving boundary, which while primarily negative gives form and function to further perspective...or even more abstractly "phenomena".

In fact, I would argue that the objective is the abstraction and the subjective is the more immediate access to reality and thus more convincing on an individual level. Therefore we should conclude that the rational person accepts a diversity of human thought as unavoidable, and I would go beyond this to even claim that it is as much an asset for the survival of civilization as genetic diversity is for the survival of the species.

And yet the "abstraction", unified often enough through "symbols", is still dependent upon a subjective imagery in the respect that I can observe only what is "in me" much in the same manner you can only observe what is "in you". The synthesis of symbols, which in themselves are forms or boundaries that extend to, through and from, other forms and boundaries, seems to mediate this process.

This mediation acts as a common bond through which "multiplicity" mirrors itself into a unity...especially in regards to the nature of language. Hence the "mirroring" process acts as a unifier and a form of causal symmetry in itself...its limits as "nothingness" or "randomness" is an absence through which the subjective imaging process "takes" hold and "approximates" our opinions from another.

In a separate respect, this randomness as a limit of unity, through a perceived multiplicity, relegates the nature of the symbol as a medial dimension in itself to that of a "unit-particulate" (I hope this word is evident in meaning). These symbols as units (with a symbol ranging from anything abstract to physical) in themselves exist through the relations they have with each other.

Hence the symbol, as an approximate of a unified reality, is dependent upon its relation to other symbols. This relation, dependent on a constant degree of "change", observes a continual process of individuation in which symbols manifest further symbols. In this manner "change" exists as a form of relation in the respect it is an approximation of "unity" my multiplicity and how we understand "time as movement" is comparable to finiteness being an approximation of infinity.

In this manner the symbol takes on an active form of change in the respect it is localized, as a part, which exists in relation to further parts. This locality, as "activity" through being as "unit", is dependent upon a form of "potentiality" in the respect that what is active may only be so if it may continually "relate". Without "relation" as a form of movement through individuation, the symbol ceases to exist.

In this manner the symbol as relation, takes on a form of finiteness through relation where the active localized nature exists through a negative barrier as potentiality (this negative nature of potentiality has a large degree of symmetry to the nature of the imagination) with this negative barrier of "potentiality" in turn giving structure to the "active" in the respect a form of individuation (as division and multiplication) take place. For instance Particle A exists as the relation of Particle B and C. The "Potential" of particle B and C acted as a barrier through which a form of individuation (turning into a unit) takes place to form Particle A.

Particle A's potential as Particle AB and AC (considering the fracturing of A into separate particles in turn causes the prior unified particles to "change") allows Particle A to maintain itself as if it ceases to "move", through time, it ceases to exists as the localized particle which it is now for existence is inseparable from "movement". This active localization of Particle A in turn inverts the potential nature of Particle A into the active nature of AB and AC, hence the process of relation requires a form of alternation as inversion...we can see this as evident within the process of "symbolism"...or as I call it "dimensions".

Eodnhoj7 » March 31st, 2018, 9:12 am wrote:Does this mean truth does not exist? No, but it still leads inherently to various questions as to the nature of truth. Agreed, but to extend upon what we "can" know, at least how it appears subjectively to me (maybe "objectively" dependent upon the philosopher's you agree with) is that truth foundationally speaking is:

1) Unified2) Multiple3) Synthetic4) With the nature of "Imagination" being a negative dimension in nature that approximates unity through a form of "imaging" in which dimensions are synthesized as the "limits of unity through multiplicity" as "negative" or absent in structure. This negative nature of the imagination, from a perspective of "multiplicity through relativity", observes the potential nature of reality in itself. Hence the nature of imagination is the synthesis of possibility, through no-limit, as the formation of axioms through a subjective nature.

Looking at what I wrote, the post seems long enough. I can address the bottom points if you wish, however they might be addressed "somewhat" already.

Nope. A diversity of thought does not mean that "truth does not exist." But we may disagree on what that phrase means, because for many seem to think that truth is necessarily singular and that the only truth is a truth which is completely the same for everyone. I reject this. I believe our diversity is as fundamental (if not more so) as it is for the different species of organisms -- as in the truth for the bird is not the truth for the worm, is not the truth for the tree, and so on. I would even say that we can be like separate universes to some degree. This is not solipsism because I also affirm that there is an objective aspect to reality, which is the same for everyone -- of that I would say there is excellent evidence. The evidence simply does not support (or refute) the claim that reality is exclusively objective. But I do think there are great pragmatic reasons (and thus subjective to some degree) for believing that there is a portion of reality which is irreducibly subjective.

What this suggests for the reasonable man is not that you should refrain from making your own decisions about what evidence to accept about what is real, but that you should not equate your experiences with reality itself to the point of passing judgement on the beliefs of others, which may very well be quite true about the reality they have experienced.

Regardless, science is defined by a methodology for finding the objectives truths and that is a worthwhile endeavor even if it is not the be all and end all of human existence -- not even close, I would say. Science is founded on objective observation, but human life is also (and I would even say primarily) about subjective participation. Life does not wait for objective evidence, and thus insisting you remain within the restrictions of objective observation for all areas and activities of life is frankly delusional. But this does not mean that we cannot insist on objective observation, evidence, and demonstrability at least as an ideal to strive for in the specialized activity of science.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

dandelion » April 1st, 2018, 4:57 am wrote:I'm not sure, I haven't followed well, but to do with Mitchell's mention of structure and imagination, does this thread consider imaginary numbers?

It may, and most likely it can, but I have not address it yet...if you have an argument I would like to here it considering I must cover the subject eventually. With that being said, in all frankness, I still have to wrap my head around them.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

dandelion » April 1st, 2018, 3:57 am wrote:I'm not sure, I haven't followed well, but to do with Mitchell's mention of structure and imagination, does this thread consider imaginary numbers?

One can easily imagine that Eodnhoj was so enamored of this labeling that he turned it into some kind of philosophy about imagination in some kind of mathematical structure.I am enamored and horrified by everything for the record. The necessity of "mathematizing" imagination comes from the perspective of mathematics itself considering the symbols we use for mathematics requires a form of "synthesis" in themselves considering the symbols act as structures through which we perceive reality. In these respects, for mathematics to maintain a "greater, but not complete" degree of clarity the process of "imagination", and by extension synthesis, must have a mathematical quality itself if the system is to maintain itself.

But while I can acknowledge that imagination has a great deal to do with our exploration of math (as well as science), I would hardly support any confinement of imagination to the trappings of mathematics.Godel's incompleteness theorems, as I am reading in a book Godel, Escher and Bach (by a Professor of the name "Hofstadter") requires an approach to mathematics to observes its possibilistic nature.

Nor do I see mathematics having much explanatory power for understanding imagination itself. As I said before, a scientific inquiry into imagination would be the work of neurologists and those who study the brain.

And these understanding of "Neurons" would require a mathematical model, hence the system loops upon itself again.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:02 am wrote:"The same for everyone" comes into a common problem where various "schools" of people disagree on how to interpret the vary same phenomena they perceive.

This is not a problem when you accept the distinction between the objective and the subjective. The objective is only that which is demonstrable. Interpretations which go beyond this are therefore subjective and diversity must therefore be expected. Lots of rhetoric and terminology cannot alter this distinction in the slightest.

You can imagine all sorts of similarities but nothing of this sort is required logically. The objective is an abstraction constructed by the communication of similarities of experience in what we call demonstrability, and this includes our mathematical understanding. The subjective is our immediate experience of reality which is not logically required to fit within the restrictions of the objective.

Like flat earthers and creationists, people can disagree, but it is not reasonable and demonstrates a degree of willful ignorance.

Unless I am mistaken these people agree with eachother and physicists (even mathematicians from what I have observed) eventually disagree with each other.

Your "in for a penny in for pound" type argument is excessively black and white - a warning sign of ideology writ large. All it really means is that the objectivity of science is an ideal we strive for rather than an absolute. It still delineates what is reasonable because the demonstrable evidence that it works is all around us.

Again it goes back to the distinction between the objective and the subjective in what is actually demonstrable. You can argue that the Earth is flat according to a definition of flat by a GR metric, but it does not change the topological facts about the Earth which are demonstrable. Likewise there is a distinction between the facts that species are observed to evolve and diverge and the entirely subjective claim that a spiritual being created it all. At most the former can only speak to how the latter is accomplished, while the latter not being demonstrable must always be a matter of diverse opinion.

BUT, it is ALSO demonstrable that things can be true even though there is no objective evidence. Thus it is only reasonable to also accept that we can have VERY good reasons to believe something even when we don't have a shred of evidence that we can demonstrate to other people. So reasonable people accept that there are things on which we must accept a diversity of belief.

Yes I fully agree with the above statement...you are right. But considering we both "agree", and oftentimes I find it not only rational but "healthy" to doubt myself from time to time, I must "doubt" your argument for the sake of argument (pardon the pun) and to question my own judgement. My doubt comes in the manner of the necessity of diversity which in itself requires a form of "unity" in agreement that simultaneously contradicts the very premises it seeks to observe. "We need diversity" for "unity" and hence "unity" must premise the diversity...otherwise there is nothing to "divide".

Yes there is no such thing as a society which makes no imposition on its members -- all community is founded upon an agreement to abide by some set of restrictions. And the minimal restrictions of a free society draws this line at intolerance, the same liberties of others, and what can be objectively demonstrated as harmful.

In fact, I would argue that the objective is the abstraction and the subjective is the more immediate access to reality and thus more convincing on an individual level. Therefore we should conclude that the rational person accepts a diversity of human thought as unavoidable, and I would go beyond this to even claim that it is as much an asset for the survival of civilization as genetic diversity is for the survival of the species.

And yet the "abstraction", unified often enough through "symbols", is still dependent upon a subjective imagery in the respect that I can observe only what is "in me" much in the same manner you can only observe what is "in you". The synthesis of symbols, which in themselves are forms or boundaries that extend to, through and from, other forms and boundaries, seems to mediate this process.

And thus it is foolish to ignore the reality of the subjective, but this does not change the unreasonable character of ignoring the demonstrable facts all around us. Like I said, at most this means the objective is a worthwhile ideal to strive for rather than an absolute.

No, but it still leads inherently to various questions as to the nature of truth.

That is a subjective determination and a subjective issue, which again only underlines the fact that the subjective cannot be gotten rid of.

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:10 am wrote:I am enamored and horrified by everything for the record. The necessity of "mathematizing" imagination comes from the perspective of mathematics itself considering the symbols we use for mathematics requires a form of "synthesis" in themselves considering the symbols act as structures through which we perceive reality. In these respects, for mathematics to maintain a "greater, but not complete" degree of clarity the process of "imagination", and by extension synthesis, must have a mathematical quality itself if the system is to maintain itself.

Such necessity and requirement would seem to be a product of your imagination. But although I am a master of mathematics and physics, my imagination has no such limitation, necessity or requirement. The mathematical is only a particular way of looking at reality and not reality itself. Indeed it is the difference which is one of the reasons I believe in (an irreducibly) subjective aspect of reality, and am thus not a metaphysical naturalist equating the scientific view with reality itself. Is that what you are?

Mathematics is a tool and you can use it for whatever you want. But I have explained why it is of no interest objectively and no interest to me personally as far as the subjective is concerned (where diversity of thought is a given).

But while I can acknowledge that imagination has a great deal to do with our exploration of math (as well as science), I would hardly support any confinement of imagination to the trappings of mathematics.

Godel's incompleteness theorems, as I am reading in a book Godel, Escher and Bach (by a Professor of the name "Hofstadter") requires an approach to mathematics to observes its possibilistic nature.

This is another requirement found in YOUR imagination and not in anything necessitated by the facts.

Nor do I see mathematics having much explanatory power for understanding imagination itself. As I said before, a scientific inquiry into imagination would be the work of neurologists and those who study the brain.

And these understanding of "Neurons" would require a mathematical model, hence the system loops upon itself again.

Invalid argument. One use of mathematics does not justify another. There are correct applications of mathematics and incorrect applications.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

dandelion » April 1st, 2018, 3:57 am wrote:I'm not sure, I haven't followed well, but to do with Mitchell's mention of structure and imagination, does this thread consider imaginary numbers?

One can easily imagine that Eodnhoj was so enamored of this labeling that he turned it into some kind of philosophy about imagination in some kind of mathematical structure. But while I can acknowledge that imagination has a great deal to do with our exploration of math (as well as science), I would hardly support any confinement of imagination to the trappings of mathematics. Nor do I see mathematics having much explanatory power for understanding imagination itself. As I said before, a scientific inquiry into imagination would be the work of neurologists and those who study the brain.

dandelion » April 1st, 2018, 4:57 am wrote:I'm not sure, I haven't followed well, but to do with Mitchell's mention of structure and imagination, does this thread consider imaginary numbers?

It may, and most likely it can, but I have not address it yet...if you have an argument I would like to here it considering I must cover the subject eventually. With that being said, in all frankness, I still have to wrap my head around them.

I see, thanks both. I wasn't sure whether there were some interpretations of these that was some sort of given. I think imaginary numbers could be an interesting angle to consider imagination even if limited or whatever from. Anyway, I still haven’t followed well, but clarifying that at least left me with a better idea of some approach.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:02 am wrote:"The same for everyone" comes into a common problem where various "schools" of people disagree on how to interpret the vary same phenomena they perceive.

This is not a problem when you accept the distinction between the objective and the subjective. Yes and this cycles back to the very same problem of "acceptance" being inherently subjective to many degrees.

The objective is only that which is demonstrable. Interpretations which go beyond this are therefore subjective and diversity must therefore be expected. Lots of rhetoric and terminology cannot alter this distinction in the slightest.And what constitutes a demonstration that can be universally agreed upon without some level of interpretation? Experiments, such as those observing wave-particle duality, have various means and manners of interpretation. Do they have some common agreed upon interpretation? Yes, generally speaking, that the dualism exists yet this interpretation is still a generalization. Demonstration without a universal median of interpretation, as definition through language and/or mathematics, is no demonstration as the interpretation is the common bond in the respect it gives insight through an agreed upon perspective.

You can imagine all sorts of similarities but nothing of this sort is required logically. The objective is an abstraction constructed by the communication of similarities of experience in what we call demonstrability, and this includes our mathematical understanding. In the above you stated that the "objective" is strictly "demonstration" and any form of interpretation is strictly "subjective and diversity therefore must be expected." However here you claim that the objective is communicate through abstract communication...yet this communication is a form of interpretation in itself in the respect that it has an "agreed" upon nature, hence is subjective. Either your statement contradicts itself or demonstration and interpretation play a dual role, at the same time in different respects, of having objective and subjective natures.

The subjective is our immediate experience of reality which is not logically required to fit within the restrictions of the objective.

And yet the subjective, as an experience of objective reality, is dependent upon a logical form as a premise considering the objective is oftentimes agreed upon as "logical".

Like flat earthers and creationists, people can disagree, but it is not reasonable and demonstrates a degree of willful ignorance.

Unless I am mistaken these people agree with eachother and physicists (even mathematicians from what I have observed) eventually disagree with each other.

Your "in for a penny in for pound" type argument is excessively black and white - a warning sign of ideology writ large. All it really means is that the objectivity of science is an ideal we strive for rather than an absolute. It still delineates what is reasonable because the demonstrable evidence that it works is all around us.

So much of science is dependent upon a subjective notion? Most likely the hypothesis, questioning method, and group agreement? If it is strictly "objective" only, and I am not arguing against the fact that their are objective portions to it, any "striving towards" objectivity implies a deficiency in objectivity to begin with.

Arguing a "black and white" argument provides the means and measure for observing any grey neutral areas, and vice versa. There is not fault in a black and white argument relative to the logical foundation of the "excluded middle".

Again it goes back to the distinction between the objective and the subjective in what is actually demonstrable. You can argue that the Earth is flat according to a definition of flat by a GR metric, but it does not change the topological facts about the Earth which are demonstrable. Likewise there is a distinction between the facts that species are observed to evolve and diverge and the entirely subjective claim that a spiritual being created it all. At most the former can only speak to how the latter is accomplished, while the latter not being demonstrable must always be a matter of diverse opinion.

What seperates the objective and subjective is the very same thing which binds them, and the is the degree of symmetry between the two. This symmetry, or symbolism as a form of the "axiom", is the foundation from which measurement manifests itself. This is considering measurements is strictly the manifestation and observation of boundaries, often times exemplified by abstract concepts, which in themselves mediate further boundaries. In these respects the objective and subjective nature of observation is dependent upon a degree of symbolism, as the foundation of the axiom, which in itself is a dimension or boundary through which the observer and observed is not just mediated but maintains a degree of unity.

BUT, it is ALSO demonstrable that things can be true even though there is no objective evidence. Thus it is only reasonable to also accept that we can have VERY good reasons to believe something even when we don't have a shred of evidence that we can demonstrate to other people. So reasonable people accept that there are things on which we must accept a diversity of belief.

Yes I fully agree with the above statement...you are right. But considering we both "agree", and oftentimes I find it not only rational but "healthy" to doubt myself from time to time, I must "doubt" your argument for the sake of argument (pardon the pun) and to question my own judgement. My doubt comes in the manner of the necessity of diversity which in itself requires a form of "unity" in agreement that simultaneously contradicts the very premises it seeks to observe. "We need diversity" for "unity" and hence "unity" must premise the diversity...otherwise there is nothing to "divide".

Yes there is no such thing as a society which makes no imposition on its members -- all community is founded upon an agreement to abide by some set of restrictions. And the minimal restrictions of a free society draws this line at intolerance, the same liberties of others, and what can be objectively demonstrated as harmful.

Yes but these "objective" notions are dependent upon a group agreement of inherently subjective opinion. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in regards to any form of knowledge.

In fact, I would argue that the objective is the abstraction and the subjective is the more immediate access to reality and thus more convincing on an individual level. Therefore we should conclude that the rational person accepts a diversity of human thought as unavoidable, and I would go beyond this to even claim that it is as much an asset for the survival of civilization as genetic diversity is for the survival of the species.

And yet the "abstraction", unified often enough through "symbols", is still dependent upon a subjective imagery in the respect that I can observe only what is "in me" much in the same manner you can only observe what is "in you". The synthesis of symbols, which in themselves are forms or boundaries that extend to, through and from, other forms and boundaries, seems to mediate this process.

And thus it is foolish to ignore the reality of the subjective, but this does not change the unreasonable character of ignoring the demonstrable facts all around us. Like I said, at most this means the objective is a worthwhile ideal to strive for rather than an absolute. To summate my above argument, as it appears we are converging on some agreement, I am strictly stating that knowledge (specifically through the scientific method, but also elsewhere) is dependent upon a dual objective and subjective nature which is found under a third degree of the "axioms as a dimension through symbolism", hence what we understand of the process of "observation" and "knowledge" is dependent upon an imaging process known as "imagination". Considering this dependence upon imagination is inherent within the reasoning process, the imagination has inherently rational characteristics which can not just be identified by provide the grounds for understanding thoroughly the nature of the subjective and objective.

No, but it still leads inherently to various questions as to the nature of truth.

That is a subjective determination and a subjective issue, which again only underlines the fact that the subjective cannot be gotten rid of.

I am not arguing that the subjective can be "gotten rid of", but rather that imagination and the nature of "subjectivity" has an inherently rational element which cannot be ignored.

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:10 am wrote:I am enamored and horrified by everything for the record. The necessity of "mathematizing" imagination comes from the perspective of mathematics itself considering the symbols we use for mathematics requires a form of "synthesis" in themselves considering the symbols act as structures through which we perceive reality. In these respects, for mathematics to maintain a "greater, but not complete" degree of clarity the process of "imagination", and by extension synthesis, must have a mathematical quality itself if the system is to maintain itself.

Such necessity and requirement would seem to be a product of your imagination. But although I am a master of mathematics and physics, my imagination has no such limitation, necessity or requirement. The mathematical is only a particular way of looking at reality and not reality itself. Indeed it is the difference which is one of the reasons I believe in (an irreducibly) subjective aspect of reality, and am thus not a metaphysical naturalist equating the scientific view with reality itself. Is that what you are?

How much of a master are you in your "craft" if you cannot promote the very same group consensus it is dependent upon? That in itself is subjective, but then again your "imagination has no such limitation, necessity or requirement"...so at least your argument is logical valid and mirrors its premises.

Mathematics is a tool and you can use it for whatever you want.

Good, then it can be applied to the imagination as well. But I have explained why it is of no interest objectively and no interest to me personally as far as the subjective is concerned (where diversity of thought is a given).

But while I can acknowledge that imagination has a great deal to do with our exploration of math (as well as science), I would hardly support any confinement of imagination to the trappings of mathematics.

Godel's incompleteness theorems, as I am reading in a book Godel, Escher and Bach (by a Professor of the name "Hofstadter") requires an approach to mathematics to observes its possibilistic nature.

This is another requirement found in YOUR imagination and not in anything necessitated by the facts.

Not just mine but other people's as well...group consensus...remember?

Nor do I see mathematics having much explanatory power for understanding imagination itself. As I said before, a scientific inquiry into imagination would be the work of neurologists and those who study the brain.

And these understanding of "Neurons" would require a mathematical model, hence the system loops upon itself again.

Invalid argument. One use of mathematics does not justify another. There are correct applications of mathematics and incorrect applications.

Actually, if I remember correctly (and I want this fact checked by a neutral party) Russel's experiment to manifests a strict mathematical model that did not reference itself eventually failed in the respect it had to reference itself eventually. Godell (and fact check this again) got part of his inspiration from this "paradox". In simple terms, as I am a simple person, the linear logic "only" approach caused the very same problem it sought to avoid as a circularity would found to be inevitable. However a circularity on its own terms, is as much of a logical fallacy (even though western linearism contradicts itself on its own terms) as the linear approach. What we understand of the reasoning process is dependent upon a dual circular and linear format.

To get back on the above point the inherent nature of basic arithmetic is needed for all mathematics to be justified and if this is not the case then the nature of "number", as symbolic "quantification", is a necessary universal median necessitating a common bond in mathematical fields. However I am not arguing, in regards to the "neuron-argument" that one mathematics is needed to justify another...strictly. I am arguing that a strictly empirical approach to observing concepts requires the very same concepts to define this empirical reality and a strictly "study-the-brain-only" approach is full of contradiction if left to it's own framework.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

dandelion » April 1st, 2018, 3:57 am wrote:I'm not sure, I haven't followed well, but to do with Mitchell's mention of structure and imagination, does this thread consider imaginary numbers?

One can easily imagine that Eodnhoj was so enamored of this labeling that he turned it into some kind of philosophy about imagination in some kind of mathematical structure. But while I can acknowledge that imagination has a great deal to do with our exploration of math (as well as science), I would hardly support any confinement of imagination to the trappings of mathematics. Nor do I see mathematics having much explanatory power for understanding imagination itself. As I said before, a scientific inquiry into imagination would be the work of neurologists and those who study the brain.

dandelion » April 1st, 2018, 4:57 am wrote:I'm not sure, I haven't followed well, but to do with Mitchell's mention of structure and imagination, does this thread consider imaginary numbers?

It may, and most likely it can, but I have not address it yet...if you have an argument I would like to here it considering I must cover the subject eventually. With that being said, in all frankness, I still have to wrap my head around them.

I see, thanks both. I wasn't sure whether there were some interpretations of these that was some sort of given. I think imaginary numbers could be an interesting angle to consider imagination even if limited or whatever from. Anyway, I still haven’t followed well, but clarifying that at least left me with a better idea of some approach.

If you got any educated opinions in regards to imaginary numbers I am open. At the end of the day, considering "imaginary" is a deficiency of the "real" in the respect that it is not reality embodied to its fullest, the imaginary numbers would "appear to me" to have some form of deficiency or negative quality.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

mitchellmckain » April 2nd, 2018, 3:23 pm wrote:The objective is only that which is demonstrable. Interpretations which go beyond this are therefore subjective and diversity must therefore be expected. Lots of rhetoric and terminology cannot alter this distinction in the slightest.

And what constitutes a demonstration that can be universally agreed upon without some level of interpretation? Experiments, such as those observing wave-particle duality, have various means and manners of interpretation. Do they have some common agreed upon interpretation? Yes, generally speaking, that the dualism exists yet this interpretation is still a generalization. Demonstration without a universal median of interpretation, as definition through language and/or mathematics, is no demonstration as the interpretation is the common bond in the respect it gives insight through an agreed upon perspective.

The actual measurements and recorded results are not a matter of interpretation, they are simply a matter of record. For the rest, you are just making me repeat myself. The objective is only that which is demonstrable.

Eodnhoj7 » April 3rd, 2018, 12:02 pm wrote:In the above you stated that the "objective" is strictly "demonstration" and any form of interpretation is strictly "subjective and diversity therefore must be expected." However here you claim that the objective is communicate through abstract communication...yet this communication is a form of interpretation in itself in the respect that it has an "agreed" upon nature, hence is subjective. Either your statement contradicts itself or demonstration and interpretation play a dual role, at the same time in different respects, of having objective and subjective natures.

I have already explained that the objective is a product of abstraction. And there is a big difference between the interpretive processes of the brain and the kind of interpretation which produces a diversity of opinion. I have also explained that this is not a matter of absolutes (which never amounts to anything more than unrealistic rhetoric anyway), but a matter of what is reasonable. Science is not founded on absolute proof but upon the reasonable expectations provided by consistent repetition.

Eodnhoj7 » April 3rd, 2018, 12:02 pm wrote: The subjective is our immediate experience of reality which is not logically required to fit within the restrictions of the objective.And yet the subjective, as an experience of objective reality, is dependent upon a logical form as a premise considering the objective is oftentimes agreed upon as "logical".

The presumption that your subjective experience represents objective reality is nothing but a presumption. Only the objective evidence can establish a reasonable expectation that others will agree that this represents an objective reality. Logical coherence is the prerequisite for making a meaningful assertion whether subjective or objective. Frequent confusions between what is objective and what is logical is irrelevant.

Absolutely! The scientific method is not a product of the scientific method. It does not hold itself up by its own bootstraps. There are numerous assumptions. For example, we assume there are no demons out there arranging the evidence to fool us. And when people are capable of arranging the evidence then we have to be very careful.

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:02 am wrote:If it is strictly "objective" only, and I am not arguing against the fact that their are objective portions to it, any "striving towards" objectivity implies a deficiency in objectivity to begin with.

Which only demonstrates the poverty of trying to understand and live life according to absolutes. What remains is the undeniable fact that the ideals of science are just as worth striving for as the ideals of love and justice.

Yes there is no such thing as a society which makes no imposition on its members -- all community is founded upon an agreement to abide by some set of restrictions. And the minimal restrictions of a free society draws this line at intolerance, the same liberties of others, and what can be objectively demonstrated as harmful.

Yes but these "objective" notions are dependent upon a group agreement of inherently subjective opinion. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in regards to any form of knowledge.

I would not use the word "objective" in that manner. And this nonsense about an "appeal to authority" is wasting my time. Much more of that kind of silliness and I will cease participation in a discussion with you. And if you do not agree to the restrictions of a free society then no community is possible with you. And if necessary, I will resort to armed conflict to defend my desire to live in a free society.

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:02 am wrote:To summate my above argument, as it appears we are converging on some agreement, I am strictly stating that knowledge (specifically through the scientific method, but also elsewhere) is dependent upon a dual objective and subjective nature which is found under a third degree of the "axioms as a dimension through symbolism", hence what we understand of the process of "observation" and "knowledge" is dependent upon an imaging process known as "imagination". Considering this dependence upon imagination is inherent within the reasoning process, the imagination has inherently rational characteristics which can not just be identified by provide the grounds for understanding thoroughly the nature of the subjective and objective.

The fact that imagination plays a crucial role in doing math and science does not mean that imagination must or even should have a role in that math or science. No more than the fact that writing a book or doing a painting requires imagination means that you have to put a representation of imagination itself into your book or painting.

Eodnhoj7 » March 31st, 2018, 9:12 am wrote:That is a subjective determination and a subjective issue, which again only underlines the fact that the subjective cannot be gotten rid of.I am not arguing that the subjective can be "gotten rid of", but rather that imagination and the nature of "subjectivity" has an inherently rational element which cannot be ignored.

Our disagreement is in the world "only." We agree it cannot be ignored. Where we disagree is on the subjective issues where diversity of thought must be expected.

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:10 am wrote:How much of a master are you in your "craft" if you cannot promote the very same group consensus it is dependent upon? That in itself is subjective, but then again your "imagination has no such limitation, necessity or requirement"...so at least your argument is logical valid and mirrors its premises.

A mastery of math and science does not require a mastery of their philosophical foundations, anymore than assembling computers requires knowing how to make processor chips. And it certainly does not require agreeing to your subjective ideas about imagination as a negative dimension.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

We expect all members to conduct themselves in a manner which encourages growth in our community, and fosters an atmosphere of learning.

II - Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. While it's normal for debates to sometimes grow heated, all comments should remain focused on the actual theories being presented, and/or the responses to challenges from fellow posters. We do not tolerate posts which demean another user on a personal level.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

mitchellmckain » April 2nd, 2018, 3:23 pm wrote:The objective is only that which is demonstrable. Interpretations which go beyond this are therefore subjective and diversity must therefore be expected. Lots of rhetoric and terminology cannot alter this distinction in the slightest.

And what constitutes a demonstration that can be universally agreed upon without some level of interpretation? Experiments, such as those observing wave-particle duality, have various means and manners of interpretation. Do they have some common agreed upon interpretation? Yes, generally speaking, that the dualism exists yet this interpretation is still a generalization. Demonstration without a universal median of interpretation, as definition through language and/or mathematics, is no demonstration as the interpretation is the common bond in the respect it gives insight through an agreed upon perspective.

The actual measurements and recorded results are not a matter of interpretation, they are simply a matter of record. For the rest, you are just making me repeat myself. The objective is only that which is demonstrable.

Yes, I understand that point and you are correct. The objective is that which is demonstratable. The problem in regards to "demonstration" is that it is not only dependent upon interpretation but a group consensus, hence a problem of "subjectivity" must be taken into account. To build upon your point what may be argued as "objective" is strictly a symmetry or congruency between interpretations, hence "objectivity is subjectivity universalized".

Eodnhoj7 » April 3rd, 2018, 12:02 pm wrote:In the above you stated that the "objective" is strictly "demonstration" and any form of interpretation is strictly "subjective and diversity therefore must be expected." However here you claim that the objective is communicate through abstract communication...yet this communication is a form of interpretation in itself in the respect that it has an "agreed" upon nature, hence is subjective. Either your statement contradicts itself or demonstration and interpretation play a dual role, at the same time in different respects, of having objective and subjective natures.

I have already explained that the objective is a product of abstraction. And there is a big difference between the interpretive processes of the brain and the kind of interpretation which produces a diversity of opinion. Provide further evidence your point. The reason I ask this is because the process of the brain and its "diversity" of neurons (and process within) mirror the same diversity we see in the problem of interpretation (both at the individual and group level). This "diversity", which I believe we can comfortably agree upon as a form of "multiplicity", implies that "truth" is multifaceted in many respects. I believe we can agree on that point. This multiplicity, in regards to the nature of knowledge and the respective perspectives which form it implies that a "diversity" of methodology is required to understand the nature of the "thinking process" (let alone the "imagination") considering the brain itself is diverse in its functions.

The question again occurs: If we strictly premise the understand of the process of rationalization through the study of neurons, which neurons are responsible for this act of self-reflection?

I have also explained that this is not a matter of absolutes (which never amounts to anything more than unrealistic rhetoric anyway), but a matter of what is reasonable. Science is not founded on absolute proof but upon the reasonable expectations provided by consistent repetition.

Eodnhoj7 » April 3rd, 2018, 12:02 pm wrote: The subjective is our immediate experience of reality which is not logically required to fit within the restrictions of the objective.And yet the subjective, as an experience of objective reality, is dependent upon a logical form as a premise considering the objective is oftentimes agreed upon as "logical".

The presumption that your subjective experience represents objective reality is nothing but a presumption. Only the objective evidence can establish a reasonable expectation that others will agree that this represents an objective reality. Logical coherence is the prerequisite for making a meaningful assertion whether subjective or objective. Frequent confusions between what is objective and what is logical is irrelevant.

So let's look at this at a practical level. I have the objective experience of observing a tree move in the wind. I see it, feel it, etc. Other people observe it as well. Now that very same night I go to sleep and I see the tree in a dream. This time, in the dream, it moves in a different direction and may have a bird or squirrel in it. Now this dream is a subjective experience, but it was representative of an objective reality. Now the next day comes and I go back to look at that tree. It is still the same tree, but through the "imaging" process of the dream I look at in a different manner.

I may touch it directly to gain a further understanding of this objective reality because of the subjective experience (ie the dream) I have had. I may brush my hand against it, maybe peel a piece of bark off to examine it further. In doing so I change the objective because of the subjective and a "mirroring" process between subjective and objective observation occurs which in turn form the other.

The medial point between the subjective and objective is embodied through the "axiom", or self-evidence of the two...hence I come to an observation because of the mirroring between the subjective and the objective and a process of synthesis occurs in the respect that I observe a "new truth" in regards to the nature of the tree in real life and the tree in the dream.

Absolutely! The scientific method is not a product of the scientific method. It does not hold itself up by its own bootstraps. There are numerous assumptions. For example, we assume there are no demons out there arranging the evidence to fool us. And when people are capable of arranging the evidence then we have to be very careful.

How does the evidence not become arranged by the questioning process? This is considering the questions themselves act as the premises through which the methodology predicates itself.

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:02 am wrote:If it is strictly "objective" only, and I am not arguing against the fact that their are objective portions to it, any "striving towards" objectivity implies a deficiency in objectivity to begin with.

Which only demonstrates the poverty of trying to understand and live life according to absolutes. What remains is the undeniable fact that the ideals of science are just as worth striving for as the ideals of love and justice.

Yes there is no such thing as a society which makes no imposition on its members -- all community is founded upon an agreement to abide by some set of restrictions. And the minimal restrictions of a free society draws this line at intolerance, the same liberties of others, and what can be objectively demonstrated as harmful.

Yes but these "objective" notions are dependent upon a group agreement of inherently subjective opinion. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in regards to any form of knowledge.

I would not use the word "objective" in that manner. And this nonsense about an "appeal to authority" is wasting my time. Much more of that kind of silliness and I will cease participation in a discussion with you.Noone is forcing you here, at least I am not. But the problem of saying "because a group agrees with it" does cause a logical problem in the respect that an authority is appealed to as a form of justification.

And if you do not agree to the restrictions of a free society then no community is possible with you. And if necessary, I will resort to armed conflict to defend my desire to live in a free society.

I think we are getting of the topic of "imagination" and its inherent relation to "reason".

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:02 am wrote:To summate my above argument, as it appears we are converging on some agreement, I am strictly stating that knowledge (specifically through the scientific method, but also elsewhere) is dependent upon a dual objective and subjective nature which is found under a third degree of the "axioms as a dimension through symbolism", hence what we understand of the process of "observation" and "knowledge" is dependent upon an imaging process known as "imagination". Considering this dependence upon imagination is inherent within the reasoning process, the imagination has inherently rational characteristics which can not just be identified by provide the grounds for understanding thoroughly the nature of the subjective and objective.

The fact that imagination plays a crucial role in doing math and science does not mean that imagination must or even should have a role in that math or science. Then it would not be "crucial"?

No more than the fact that writing a book or doing a painting requires imagination means that you have to put a representation of imagination itself into your book or painting.

Eodnhoj7 » March 31st, 2018, 9:12 am wrote:That is a subjective determination and a subjective issue, which again only underlines the fact that the subjective cannot be gotten rid of.I am not arguing that the subjective can be "gotten rid of", but rather that imagination and the nature of "subjectivity" has an inherently rational element which cannot be ignored.

Our disagreement is in the world "only." We agree it cannot be ignored. Where we disagree is on the subjective issues where diversity of thought must be expected.

If diversity of thought is to be expected, then the disagreement is necessary?

Eodnhoj7 » April 2nd, 2018, 11:10 am wrote:How much of a master are you in your "craft" if you cannot promote the very same group consensus it is dependent upon? That in itself is subjective, but then again your "imagination has no such limitation, necessity or requirement"...so at least your argument is logical valid and mirrors its premises.

A mastery of math and science does not require a mastery of their philosophical foundations, anymore than assembling computers requires knowing how to make processor chips. And it certainly does not require agreeing to your subjective ideas about imagination as a negative dimension.

We expect all members to conduct themselves in a manner which encourages growth in our community, and fosters an atmosphere of learning.

II - Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. While it's normal for debates to sometimes grow heated, all comments should remain focused on the actual theories being presented, and/or the responses to challenges from fellow posters. We do not tolerate posts which demean another user on a personal level.

It was a light-hearted metaphor, on subjective vs. objective, and the role of imagination. And you can rest easy that the forum admin is aware of the forum guidelines. It's unfortunate that you are seeing things in adversarial terms. Next time, I hope you will ask if something is intended seriously or in jest, if there's any question in your mind. If there is an actual personal attack, please do not hesitate to flag the post.